Christian girls at the Millais school in West Sussex England claim they are being discriminated against for their faith in Christianity. Well to be exact, it’s their choice of jewelry. Several Christian girls have chosen to remain chaste and are wearing a purity ring to symbolize this mistake choice. Sounds simple, but the school has a strict policy towards jewelry,
This is not part of school uniform and MUST NOT BE WORN.
It would appear that the school has an open and shut case. But the girls claim that it’s unfair because Muslim students can wear their hijab and Sikh girls can wear their bangles. The hijab is head scarf, not jewelry, so leave them alone. Hijabs are not listed as inappropriate in the school’s uniform requirements. But the bangles are basically bracelets and would appear to violate the school’s policy towards jewelry.
When I read stories like this I can’t help but get seriously annoyed at both the stupid girls pressing this issue and the school’s draconian Nazi policies. First off, these girls have no right to wear these lame rings as per the school’s dress code. Furthermore, the desire to wear them in the first place is psychotic. Great, so you want to be a virgin, why the hell do you have to share that choice with us? It’s a very personal decision and doesn’t need to be shared with anyone but your unlucky boyfriend. Honestly, I sort of appreciate the "I don’t go all the way" warning label, but seriously, nobody really cares.
As for the Muslims being able to wear the hijab, guess what, it’s not jewelry! As for the Sikh’s wearing their bracelets, I don’t believe it. I mean seriously, when’s the last time anyone saw a Sikh outside of India? But assuming you’re not lying, I say it’s messed up. But it’s still not a valid argument to wear your rings. It’s a valid argument for Sikh’s NOT to wear their bracelets. So now you’ve just screwed the Sikhs over. I hope Sikhs are nice because they’re going to be pissed that you blew their gig.
Sorry for the rant, but this meaningless stuff just annoys me to no end. Mind your own business and keep personal issues personal! Am I nuts?
Complete story here.
Related posts:
- Catholic University Girls Gone Wild
- Hijab Or Bust
- Shunned Jesus Sues Elementary School
- Wahlert Catholic High Adopts Gestapo Tactics
- Hijabs Rooted In Kinky Ceremony?
June 21st, 2006 at 11:46 am
Even if the school makes allowances for Sikh’s they are required to wear the bangles. These girls aren’t required to wear jewelry as Christians and it could even be supported that they are admonished not to wear jewelry to excess. So I’d say they have no case.
Now having said that, for someone who thinks views/decisions on chastity (which isn’t stupid, particularly not in this day and age) you sure make yours public. Also regarding Sikhs, there are Sikhs in the US, particularly in large metropolitan areas.
June 21st, 2006 at 1:10 pm
Cap, I don’t mind if people choose to “save” themselves for marriage, but I do hate it when they people flaunt it… like their special or something. Also, while many girls choose not to have sex, they seem to have no problem polishing knobs. Apparently that’s ok in the eyes of God. Gimme a break!
Sex isn’t a “dirty” act and it’s definitely not just for babymaking folks. Enjoy it and have lots of it! Just do it safely and responsibly.
gasmonso
June 22nd, 2006 at 11:12 am
How is a ring gonna help these girls when they go out drunk in the evenings?
BTW this school is only around 15 miles from me :)
June 23rd, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Not a dirty act at all and not just for the making of babies, I agree. Quite a bit of fun. I’m not sure why “flaunting” their choice’s such a bad thing, though. Maybe they want to send a message to boys saying “no huggin no kissin until I get a wedding ring”, maybe they don’t see it as “flaunting”. In any case if they do save it for marriage (as a matter of choice) that does make them special and it can mean that they have a better quality of life (no unwanted pregnancy or STD’s to worry about).
June 23rd, 2006 at 1:38 pm
Cap, please educate me as to how not having sex until your married is special. I think it’s impressive that one can hold out and fend off the natural urge, but it’s not special.
gasmonso
June 23rd, 2006 at 7:34 pm
Special as defined by being other than the usual, set apart in some fashion. I’d say that if holding out and fending of the natural urge is “impressive”, then you also think it’s special. Unless you’re defining special differently.
June 25th, 2006 at 12:02 am
“it can mean that they have a better quality of life (no unwanted pregnancy or STD’s to worry about).”
That’s not having a better quality of life: its just turning your back on one of the best pleasures of life.
If you don’t want to have sex because you see it as a health risk, there are many other activities you shouldn’t have, that involve a much higher risk.
Life’s meant to be lived.
June 26th, 2006 at 10:45 am
I see. So if you had a thirteen year old child who told you they were having sex, you’d tell them “Go for it, just be ’safe’!”
June 26th, 2006 at 12:21 pm
yup
June 26th, 2006 at 12:46 pm
The problem is that parents are affraid to talk about sex with their children. Your 13 years old girl wouldn’t do something stupid if you actually honestly told her what to expect, and what to be careful about.
So to answer your question, yes i’d tell her to say go for it. But there’s a lot more to say than just “just be safe”.
June 26th, 2006 at 1:05 pm
My succinct witticism aside, I agree completely with Anonymous#13.
June 27th, 2006 at 3:11 pm
I’ve met too many 13 year olds to believe that they won’t do something stupid even if given the right info and typically they aren’t, by anyone parental or otherwise. Top that off with the hormone cocktail they’re cruising on and add a jigger of easily accessible drugs and… Hey are any of you guys actually parents?
June 27th, 2006 at 3:50 pm
I wouldn’t tell my daughter to go for it, but at the same token I wouldn’t advise her to wear a stupid ring saying she’s a virgin and will continue to be one till marriage. It’s a personal choice that, like religion, should be kept personal. I hate when people advertise their intimate matters like homosexuals who want everyone to know their gay. Shut up… we don’t care. Now if you’re marching down main street for equal rights, thats cool… but otherwise shutup. And if you decide to share it with everyone, then don’t be surprised when they throw it back in your face.
It’s all common sense stuff if you ask me… unfortunately, common sense is not all that common.
June 28th, 2006 at 1:55 pm
And how many of all these 13 years old you met were your daughters?
You’d rather scare them so bad they won’t do anything before they’re married?
And i’d like to remind you this isn’t only about 13 years old. I understand 13 can seem young for parents, and maybe even I would change my mind if my daughter asked me that question. What i think is insane, is brainwashing her enough she will fear having sex until she’s married.
Having sex isn’t riskier than going to work every day. And it’s much more fun :)
June 29th, 2006 at 11:16 am
My daughters aren’t 13 yet.
I don’t want to “scare” anyone. I just want them to know the truth. Sex is great, but to participate in it you should know that there are responsibilities and possible bad outcomes.
I picked 13 because having worked with girls around that age in circumstances were not being taught about responsibility/consequences regarding not just sex, but a myriad of things got them into troubles galore. Thirteen in our culture is a difficult age, because they are still children, but their body/media/friends are telling them that they aren’t. Having sex is riskier in different ways than going to work, so that’s a false comparison. There can be many repercussions to having sex at that age, not the least of which are emotional and (imo) spiritual. Now if sex is simply a pleasurable physical act in your mind, no more no less, I can’t convince you, but I believe that it’s much more.
June 29th, 2006 at 11:20 am
My daughters aren’t 13 yet.
I don’t want to “scare” anyone. I just want them to know the truth. Sex is great, but to participate in it you should know that there are responsibilities and possible bad outcomes.
I picked 13 because having worked with girls around that age in circumstances were not being taught about responsibility/consequences regarding not just sex, but a myriad of things got them into troubles galore. Thirteen in our culture is a difficult age, because they are still children, but their body/media/friends are telling them that they aren’t. Having sex is riskier in different ways than going to work, so that’s a false comparison. There can be many repercussions to having sex at that age, not the least of which are emotional and (imo) spiritual. Now if sex is simply a pleasurable physical act in your mind, no more no less, I can’t convince you, but I believe that it’s much more.
Weird, my comments aren’t showing.
June 29th, 2006 at 12:43 pm
You’re comments show up just fine, but it takes a little bit while they are checked for spam :) Its either that or I make everyone register and I don’t like that.
June 29th, 2006 at 8:19 pm
Cool. I hate spam. Unless it’s served with bacon and eggs and spam.
July 7th, 2006 at 5:27 pm
/sing the spam song from monty python
/duck
July 21st, 2006 at 2:47 pm
i’m a sikh in the u.s.
check it out –> The Sikh On The Street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lM9i_61Owfc
August 5th, 2007 at 2:41 pm
Thirteen year olds are children?
BAHAHAHAHAHAA!
The peak of mental ability is the age of 15.
They’re only two years shy of that. Our standard age for having sex is so far along in life, humans would have died out if we always had those standards, because they’d be dead before they finally got to sex.
Society doesn’t think really. It really doesn’t.
August 8th, 2007 at 7:35 pm
Just so you know there is a reason for the Sikh’s being allowed to wear the bangles (and even for the Muslims to wear their hijabs). The school dress code calls for all students to wear a standard uniform, with no jewelry (with the exception of a small, simple watch). An adendem to the policy however states that the girls are permitted to wear additonal items when it is REQUIRED by their religion. Muslims are required to wear hijab; Sikhs are required to wear the gold bangles– however these girls are not REQUIRED by their religion to wear these rings, they simply choose to. Thus the superior courts have upheld the decision (to allow bangles and disallow “abstinence” or “chastity” rings.
I don’t subscribe to any of these religions, but the school’s policy and the superior court’s decision was appropriate.
August 9th, 2007 at 8:07 am
no it wasn’t.
I’m really sorry, but merely belonging to some belief system is a ridiculous reason to be exempt from the rules. If I say i belong to some obscure african religion that requires me to wear a human bone in my hair, is that acceptable?
To take it one step further, why is religion a reason to do anything? If i believe I will go to hell unless I jump up and sing a song every three minutes, is that acceptable? hell no.
If my grandmother ‘REQUIRED’ that I wear a dead crane on my head, is that a good reason? I hope not.
So why, by Wodan, are other obscure and diculous fictional beliefs deemed a good basis for random demands?
April 3rd, 2008 at 12:35 am
Because we’re taught to be “Politically Correct” and accept other peoples’ beliefs. We’re taught that people who don’t do that are evil and don’t care for other people’s feelings.
June 4th, 2008 at 10:12 am
i don’t know why they can’t wear any jewelry at all anyway. a single ring? I think the purity pledge is a good thing. Yeah, usually they don’t make it, but, it does help them wait until they are just a little older. Young teens are not always ready for this. (some are, some aren’t) My son committed suicide at the age of 15 because of a girl. Its a very difficult age and time for many kids. This silly little ring just helps them for a little while, put off something they might be afraid to do, and let’s face it…the diseases are rampant and condoms do not protect against all of them. Also, many of the diseases can be transferred through oral sex (including HIV) HIV is more easily transferred through oral sex than through regular heterosexual intercourse. In order for the purity pledge to work, it can’t be a secret. You have to be proud of it. Let’s instill some kind of morals in the kids today (it doesn’t have to be related to religion at all, just a good common sense approach) In the city I live in 11 and 12 year olds area giving birth and the HIV rates among the young women are horrendous. (P.S. I am totally for sex education along with giving out free condoms to students etc., but, this little pledge could help just a couple of kids to…it would be worth it) If you could see the look on the face of a young person who was just told they have HIV, you might be more understanding. (also, alot of girls think or are told that oral sex is safe, and it’s not)
June 11th, 2008 at 4:14 pm
I think they can wear they’re damn ring all they want to, as long as it says something blatantly obvious about it’s meaning. I, for one, am glad to know sooner than later that I ain’t hittin that.
As for sex at 13, I started when I was 7 and I can tell you that there are a good number of sexually active preteens. The good ones just don’t get caught. I wasn’t caught. To date I have no known STDs, 1 STD scare, and 2 pregnancy scares. I am 23 now and in a fulfilling relationship. Something I learned a long time ago, it’s not the act that is inherently dangerous, its societies view of the act.